Improbable Universe Part 2

[ryan]

It is completely meaningless to discuss the probability of a single observation.

That's what I think, but apparently an outcome after the fact can somehow be improbable.

That seems to be a confusion of tenses. Any specific outcome that hasn't yet occured can be improbable if there are many other possible outcomes, a certainty if it is the only possibility, and a certainty after that outcome occurs regardless of how many other possible outcomes there were.

I agree. But the scientists are calling our universe's boundary and constant values along with our laws improbable, but we observed them after they happened. This is what I don't understand.

One thing that made me think of the scientist's point of view is if you played a lottery and won. But later you found out that your ticket was the only one sold out of millions of other possible numbers. You might think that someone intervened in someway. Like the improbable values of the universe, it wasn't until after you won did you find out that there were no other ticket holders.

I think the last analogy is not quite exact because there is a really black and white probability, either you win or you don't. With the improbable universe for life, you can have life or very large number of other possible universes with interesting anomalies that aren't life, all being dictated by random quantum fluctuations.

 

[skepticalbip]

That seems to be a confusion of tenses. Any specific outcome that hasn't yet occured can be improbable if there are many other possible outcomes, a certainty if it is the only possibility, and a certainty after that outcome occurs regardless of how many other possible outcomes there were.

I agree. But the scientists are calling our universe's boundary and constant values along with our laws improbable, but we observed them after they happened. This is what I don't understand.

One thing that made me think of the scientist's point of view is if you played a lottery and won. But later you found out that your ticket was the only one sold out of millions of other possible numbers. You might think that someone intervened in someway. Like the improbable values of the universe, it wasn't until after you won did you find out that there were no other ticket holders.

I think the last analogy is not quite exact because there is a really black and white probability, either you win or you don't. With the improbable universe for life, you can have life or very large number of other possible universes with interesting anomalies that aren't life, all being dictated by random quantum fluctuations.

You keep saying that "scientists say" but haven't yet linked to 'scientists' saying any such thing. I know of none but have read many that ask if the universal constants could have been other than what they are. Richard Feinman was known for his recognition of our lack of understanding of why the constants were what they are. But not knowing why they are what they are does not mean believing that they could have been different.

 

[ryan]

OK, have you ever actually mentioned which scientists it is that you're talking about or which conditions they're referencing? Because I can't see an interpretation of my comments which translate into agreeing with you.

If I name one of them, then it is easy to imagine that that one scientist could be wrong. I can tell you that fine-tuning is a very well known problem. You would have to explore it for yourself to see how well accepted and problematic it is.

Okay, so by "second number" do you mean what these possibilities are out of? If it is,

Imagine a multiverse with 10^500 universes (an actual value in string theory). One universe get's the Hello in the cmbr because it's inevitable. They would be surprised in some sense, but they shouldn't be if they knew how many universes there are.

Now imagine a universe without a multiverse that gets the Hello. I don't know why this would be improbable either. Afterall it had the same chance as any of the other possible cmbr maps, specifically 1/10^500.

Two things.

Number one, having an equal chance as every other possibility doesn't mean it's somehow less improbable. That is so unrelated to the definition of improbable that I really can't even expand upon it.

Number two, if the value of a condition is going to be somewhere between 1 and 10^500, what is it that makes you think that every value along that continuum must be equally likely? Why wouldn't there be factors involved in the creation of that condition which cause the outcome of that condition to group around the value of 20 10^499 times and only rarely have a value which comes up as higher than 21?

Then it wouldn't be truly a 1 in 10^500 chance. Wouldn't we simply take the higher probability densities and stretch them until they are indexed the same way as the numbers above 21. In such a case we would just assign n number of each of higher propable outcomes and replicate them n times until they all have equal chances again. The new probability would simply be 1/(10^500+n).

 

[ryan]

True of every lottery winner ever. An improbable thing happening doesn't mean that it was somehow less improbable for it to have happened.

Yes, but in order to make this an analogy to my issue of scientists calling life in a single universe improbable is to make it so only one person buys the ticket. The one person that bought the ticket wins and in some sense I agree that there would have had to be someone tampering with the lottery.

Imagine only 2 universes exist, one with life and one without life. Suppose we figured out a way to observe the other universe and we found that it had a strange substance S in a very small part of that universe and does not exist in our universe. Would we still say that it was improbable that the other universe were fine-tuned for S?

I am missing something, but I have no idea what.

No, that would be an experiment based on little to no data, so no valid conclusions could be seen at all, but I see what it is that you're getting at. If we were to observe a large number of universes and found that all the ones which don't have life contain S and none of the ones which do have S, then you could make a correlation between lack of S and conditions for life.

I forgot to add that the scientists also note that the second universe had to have just the right laws, boundary conditions and constant values like its gravity etc. for S to exist in it. In the same way the scientists should say that S was improbable and therefore there needs to be a multiverse or something else would need to explain the improbability.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If I name one of them, then it is easy to imagine that that one scientist could be wrong. I can tell you that fine-tuning is a very well known problem. You would have to explore it for yourself to see how well accepted and problematic it is.

Two things.

Number one, having an equal chance as every other possibility doesn't mean it's somehow less improbable. That is so unrelated to the definition of improbable that I really can't even expand upon it.

Number two, if the value of a condition is going to be somewhere between 1 and 10^500, what is it that makes you think that every value along that continuum must be equally likely? Why wouldn't there be factors involved in the creation of that condition which cause the outcome of that condition to group around the value of 20 10^499 times and only rarely have a value which comes up as higher than 21?

Then it wouldn't be truly a 1 in 10^500 chance. Wouldn't we simply take the higher probability densities and stretch them until they are indexed the same way as the numbers above 21. In such a case we would just assign n number of each of higher propable outcomes and replicate them n times until they all have equal chances again. The new probability would simply be 1/(10^500+n).

Ummm ... yes. That’s the point. You can’t just throw out random numbers like 10^500 and pretend they mean something or that you’re making an argument. Because they don’t and you’re not.

A response to your “improbability” argument could just be that the likehood of these characteristics being present is 99/100 so it’s probable they’d have those values and therefore odd you’d find it a weird result. It would be an equally meaningless response, of course, but it would exactly as valid as your argument.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There are scientists and it seems it's entirely an idea of scientists.

Given the technical aspect of the idea, I guess you have to be a scientist to even understand it properly.

The chemist Lawrence Joseph Henderson in 1913, physicist Robert H. Dicke in 1961, Fred Hoyle in 1984, John Gribbin and Martin Rees in 1989, and Stephen Hawking, among others.

Fine-tuned universe (Wiki)
In 1913, the chemist Lawrence Joseph Henderson (1878–1942) wrote The Fitness of the Environment, one of the first books to explore concepts of fine tuning in the universe.
In 1961, physicist Robert H. Dicke claimed that certain forces in physics, such as gravity and electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist anywhere in the universe.
Fred Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned universe in his 1984 book Intelligent Universe.
John Gribbin and Martin Rees wrote a detailed history and defence of the fine-tuning argument in their book Cosmic Coincidences (1989).
As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Still, it seems obvious it's not a scientific question for now. It is at best a question future generations may want to try and answer.
EB

 

[ryan]

That seems to be a confusion of tenses. Any specific outcome that hasn't yet occured can be improbable if there are many other possible outcomes, a certainty if it is the only possibility, and a certainty after that outcome occurs regardless of how many other possible outcomes there were.

I agree. But the scientists are calling our universe's boundary and constant values along with our laws improbable, but we observed them after they happened. This is what I don't understand.

One thing that made me think of the scientist's point of view is if you played a lottery and won. But later you found out that your ticket was the only one sold out of millions of other possible numbers. You might think that someone intervened in someway. Like the improbable values of the universe, it wasn't until after you won did you find out that there were no other ticket holders.

I think the last analogy is not quite exact because there is a really black and white probability, either you win or you don't. With the improbable universe for life, you can have life or very large number of other possible universes with interesting anomalies that aren't life, all being dictated by random quantum fluctuations.

You keep saying that "scientists say" but haven't yet linked to 'scientists' saying any such thing. I know of none but have read many that ask if the universal constants could have been other than what they are. Richard Feinman was known for his recognition of our lack of understanding of why the constants were what they are. But not knowing why they are what they are does not mean believing that they could have been different.

They don't know how these values came to be which is the heart of the problem, I think. I don't think they know right now if the values could have been different, but a multiverse would imply that they can be different.

Of course the structure we see that allows for life could have been different since it resulted from quantum fluctuations during the inflation period.

 

[ryan]

If I name one of them, then it is easy to imagine that that one scientist could be wrong. I can tell you that fine-tuning is a very well known problem. You would have to explore it for yourself to see how well accepted and problematic it is.

Two things.

Number one, having an equal chance as every other possibility doesn't mean it's somehow less improbable. That is so unrelated to the definition of improbable that I really can't even expand upon it.

Number two, if the value of a condition is going to be somewhere between 1 and 10^500, what is it that makes you think that every value along that continuum must be equally likely? Why wouldn't there be factors involved in the creation of that condition which cause the outcome of that condition to group around the value of 20 10^499 times and only rarely have a value which comes up as higher than 21?

Then it wouldn't be truly a 1 in 10^500 chance. Wouldn't we simply take the higher probability densities and stretch them until they are indexed the same way as the numbers above 21. In such a case we would just assign n number of each of higher propable outcomes and replicate them n times until they all have equal chances again. The new probability would simply be 1/(10^500+n).

Ummm ... yes. That’s the point. You can’t just throw out random numbers like 10^500 and pretend they mean something or that you’re making an argument. Because they don’t and you’re not.

A response to your “improbability” argument could just be that the likehood of these characteristics being present is 99/100 so it’s probable they’d have those values and therefore odd you’d find it a weird result. It would be an equally meaningless response, of course, but it would exactly as valid as your argument.

If it could be a 99/100 chance of those values, then why are the scientists saying that our universe is highly improbable?

 

[Peez]

OK, have you ever actually mentioned which scientists it is that you're talking about or which conditions they're referencing? Because I can't see an interpretation of my comments which translate into agreeing with you.

If I name one of them, then it is easy to imagine that that one scientist could be wrong. I can tell you that fine-tuning is a very well known problem. You would have to explore it for yourself to see how well accepted and problematic it is.

I am forced to conclude, from ryan's steadfast refusal to support these assertions, that ryan has simply made up the idea that some "scientists" somewhere at some time have stated this or that.

Peez

 

[skepticalbip]

You keep saying that "scientists say" but haven't yet linked to 'scientists' saying any such thing. I know of none but have read many that ask if the universal constants could have been other than what they are. Richard Feinman was known for his recognition of our lack of understanding of why the constants were what they are. But not knowing why they are what they are does not mean believing that they could have been different.

They don't know how these values came to be which is the heart of the problem, I think. I don't think they know right now if the values could have been different, but a multiverse would imply that they can be different.

There is a hell of a lot that remains unknown. That is why there is still a need for science - to keep digging into that mountain of unknowns. However, the fact that something is still among that pile of unknowns does not mean that any guess is meaningful or even worthwhile. Then the idea of a multiverse does not necessarily mean that implies the constants could be different - it depends on which of the many multiverse ideas offered is assumed.

Of course the structure we see that allows for life could have been different since it resulted from quantum fluctuations during the inflation period.

Is there any reason to assume this is true? Or are you just throwing out something that sounds good to you? What exactly do you think quantum fluctuations has to do with establishing the values of the universal constants?

 

[ryan]

There are scientists and it seems it's entirely an idea of scientists.

Given the technical aspect of the idea, I guess you have to be a scientist to even understand it properly.

The chemist Lawrence Joseph Henderson in 1913, physicist Robert H. Dicke in 1961, Fred Hoyle in 1984, John Gribbin and Martin Rees in 1989, and Stephen Hawking, among others.

Fine-tuned universe (Wiki)
In 1913, the chemist Lawrence Joseph Henderson (1878–1942) wrote The Fitness of the Environment, one of the first books to explore concepts of fine tuning in the universe.
In 1961, physicist Robert H. Dicke claimed that certain forces in physics, such as gravity and electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist anywhere in the universe.
Fred Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned universe in his 1984 book Intelligent Universe.
John Gribbin and Martin Rees wrote a detailed history and defence of the fine-tuning argument in their book Cosmic Coincidences (1989).
As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Still, it seems obvious it's not a scientific question for now. It is at best a question future generations may want to try and answer.
EB

Well the whole fine-tuning problem is explained in a pretty simple way. They simply say that our universe's propensity to produce life is highly improbable due to constants, laws and boundary conditions being just right. Any slightly different value for any of them would result in a universe unable to have life. Although, I am definitely missing something about why it is a coincidence that needs an explanation.

 

[skepticalbip]

Ummm ... yes. That’s the point. You can’t just throw out random numbers like 10^500 and pretend they mean something or that you’re making an argument. Because they don’t and you’re not.

A response to your “improbability” argument could just be that the likehood of these characteristics being present is 99/100 so it’s probable they’d have those values and therefore odd you’d find it a weird result. It would be an equally meaningless response, of course, but it would exactly as valid as your argument.

If it could be a 99/100 chance of those values, then why are the scientists saying that our universe is highly improbable?

You are still sticking with 'scientists say'. Who the hell are these 'scientists'? I know of none that say such a silly thing.

 

[ryan]

There is a hell of a lot that remains unknown. That is why there is still a need for science - to keep digging into that mountain of unknowns. However, the fact that something is still among that pile of unknowns does not mean that any guess is meaningful or even worthwhile. Then the idea of a multiverse does not necessarily mean that implies the constants could be different - it depends on which of the many multiverse ideas offered is assumed.

Of course the structure we see that allows for life could have been different since it resulted from quantum fluctuations during the inflation period.

Is there any reason to assume this is true? Or are you just throwing out something that sounds good to you? What exactly do you think quantum fluctuations has to do with establishing the values of the universal constants?

I didn't say it established the constants. As for quantum fluctuations during inflation, if you don't believe me, then you are just going to have find it out yourself. I am not hand-holding in this thread.

 

[Speakpigeon]

In my view, if images of the cmbr showed the words "This universe supports life", it would be an incredible coincidence. I would start going to Church immediately.

What's the difference between having the words "This universe supports life" and what images of the cmbr actually show?

As I see it, given that the distribution of the cmbr is understood as random, the number N of possibilities where the cmbr would show anything incredible, broadly anything looking like a message, from script to likenesses of things like people, animals, plants, or physical models like an atom of hydrogen, geometrical figures etc. is staggering.

Yet, the number A of possibilities of the kind of distributions we see in actual fact is not just staggering. It is staggering even compared to the first number N.

The reason for that is the human brain. We can't distinguish between two random distributions. We couldn't even remember any one of them. The best we can do is remember what a random distribution broadly looks like.

Since we can't remember any particular random distribution, we wouldn't notice any coincidence if there was one.

However, the human brain can immediately identify the words "This universe supports life" or any remarkable distribution, if it was what the cmbr showed.

So, in this case, there would indeed be a coincidence, coincidence between one seemingly random distribution out of a very large number of them, and the very small set of distributions that would be somehow remarkable to the human brain.

Thus, we would have a coincidence between two seemingly independent processes: the distribution of the cmbr and the make-up of the human brain, brain which obviously could not possibly have evolved to recognise cmbr distributions.

So, the coincidence wouldn't be in the occurrence of any particular distribution since they are all equally probable. The coincidence would be between a particular distribution and the very small set, relatively speaking, of distributions that are remarkable to the human brain.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

There are scientists and it seems it's entirely an idea of scientists.

Given the technical aspect of the idea, I guess you have to be a scientist to even understand it properly.

The chemist Lawrence Joseph Henderson in 1913, physicist Robert H. Dicke in 1961, Fred Hoyle in 1984, John Gribbin and Martin Rees in 1989, and Stephen Hawking, among others.

Fine-tuned universe (Wiki)
In 1913, the chemist Lawrence Joseph Henderson (1878–1942) wrote The Fitness of the Environment, one of the first books to explore concepts of fine tuning in the universe.
In 1961, physicist Robert H. Dicke claimed that certain forces in physics, such as gravity and electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist anywhere in the universe.
Fred Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned universe in his 1984 book Intelligent Universe.
John Gribbin and Martin Rees wrote a detailed history and defence of the fine-tuning argument in their book Cosmic Coincidences (1989).
As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Still, it seems obvious it's not a scientific question for now. It is at best a question future generations may want to try and answer.
EB

Well the whole fine-tuning problem is explained in a pretty simple way. They simply say that our universe's propensity to produce life is highly improbable due to constants, laws and boundary conditions being just right. Any slightly different value for any of them would result in a universe unable to have life. Although, I am definitely missing something about why it is a coincidence that needs an explanation.

I think it is a matter of you misreading and misunderstanding what 'scientists say'. The fact that the universe being radically different (different universal constants) would not allow for life does not mean that scientists are claiming that our universe is improbable. It also doesn't mean that they believe that the constants could be different than they are. They don't know why the constants have the specific values they have but that too doesn't mean they are claiming they could be different.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, nobody’s going to be backing up your claim for you or trying to track down your sources in order to validate them.

It may be that you’re taking some statement out of context or using a bad source or have a valid point that we’re not seeing. We won’t do your homework for you to turn your vague statement into a valid scientific methodology, though.

 

[skepticalbip]

There is a hell of a lot that remains unknown. That is why there is still a need for science - to keep digging into that mountain of unknowns. However, the fact that something is still among that pile of unknowns does not mean that any guess is meaningful or even worthwhile. Then the idea of a multiverse does not necessarily mean that implies the constants could be different - it depends on which of the many multiverse ideas offered is assumed.

Of course the structure we see that allows for life could have been different since it resulted from quantum fluctuations during the inflation period.

Is there any reason to assume this is true? Or are you just throwing out something that sounds good to you? What exactly do you think quantum fluctuations has to do with establishing the values of the universal constants?

I didn't say it established the constants. As for quantum fluctuations during inflation, if you don't believe me, then you are just going to have find it out yourself. I am not hand-holding in this thread.

WTF? Of course there are quantum fluctuations both during the inflationary period (if there were such a period) but still today. But you didn't answer what this has to do with the values of universal constants.

 

[ryan]

Ummm ... yes. That’s the point. You can’t just throw out random numbers like 10^500 and pretend they mean something or that you’re making an argument. Because they don’t and you’re not.

A response to your “improbability” argument could just be that the likehood of these characteristics being present is 99/100 so it’s probable they’d have those values and therefore odd you’d find it a weird result. It would be an equally meaningless response, of course, but it would exactly as valid as your argument.

If it could be a 99/100 chance of those values, then why are the scientists saying that our universe is highly improbable?

You are still sticking with 'scientists say'. Who the hell are these 'scientists'? I know of none that say such a silly thing.

Here grab my hand and stay close, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/#DoesFineTuniForLifeRequResp

"Many researchers believe that the fine-tuning of the universe’s laws, constants, and boundary conditions for life calls for inferring the existence of a divine designer (see Section 3) or a multiverse—a vast collection of universes with differing laws, constants, and boundary conditions"

 

[ryan]

In my view, if images of the cmbr showed the words "This universe supports life", it would be an incredible coincidence. I would start going to Church immediately.

What's the difference between having the words "This universe supports life" and what images of the cmbr actually show?

As I see it, given that the distribution of the cmbr is understood as random, the number N of possibilities where the cmbr would show anything incredible, broadly anything looking like a message, from script to likenesses of things like people, animals, plants, or physical models like an atom of hydrogen, geometrical figures etc. is staggering.

Yet, the number A of possibilities of the kind of distributions we see in actual fact is not just staggering. It is staggering even compared to the first number N.

The reason for that is the human brain. We can't distinguish between two random distributions. We couldn't even remember any one of them. The best we can do is remember what a random distribution broadly looks like.

Since we can't remember any particular random distribution, we wouldn't notice any coincidence if there was one.

However, the human brain can immediately identify the words "This universe supports life" or any remarkable distribution, if it was what the cmbr showed.

So, in this case, there would indeed be a coincidence, coincidence between one seemingly random distribution out of a very large number of them, and the very small set of distributions that would be somehow remarkable to the human brain.

Thus, we would have a coincidence between two seemingly independent processes: the distribution of the cmbr and the make-up of the human brain, brain which obviously could not possibly have evolved to recognise cmbr distributions.

So, the coincidence wouldn't be in the occurrence of any particular distribution since they are all equally probable. The coincidence would be between a particular distribution and the very small set, relatively speaking, of distributions that are remarkable to the human brain.
EB

Okay, but if it is about sets of kinds of cmbr maps, then we must be in a rare set of a different kind of randomness. Humans imagine and choose these sets, so the sets really are arbitrary. There shouldn't be anything special about "This universe supports life" written on the map.

 

[ryan]

Well the whole fine-tuning problem is explained in a pretty simple way. They simply say that our universe's propensity to produce life is highly improbable due to constants, laws and boundary conditions being just right. Any slightly different value for any of them would result in a universe unable to have life. Although, I am definitely missing something about why it is a coincidence that needs an explanation.

I think it is a matter of you misreading and misunderstanding what 'scientists say'. The fact that the universe being radically different (different universal constants) would not allow for life does not mean that scientists are claiming that our universe is improbable. It also doesn't mean that they believe that the constants could be different than they are. They don't know why the constants have the specific values they have but that too doesn't mean they are claiming they could be different.

Again, I didn't say that the constants could have been different.